King Solomon (King Shlomo): If he was great and wealthy could you back it up?
- Thread starter tradingjournals
- Start date
Furthermore......all these titles like kings and saints and knights and lords are a whole lot of horse manure also.... Luke .
.Solomon's main credit was the construction of the 1st Temple which was sacked and destroyed under the reign of King Jehoiachin by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The account of the battle is recorded by both civilizations, in the Bible and the Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, ABC 5 - Nebuchadnezzar early years i.e. "Jerusalem Chronicle"
The remaining foundation stones of the 1st Temple serve as the base of the remains of the 2nd Temple which still exist.
Most mainstream archeologists and historians do not doubt the historical accuracy of King Solomon.
Could you show specifically anywhere in the Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles themselves , and not in biblical accounts contrived from them, where there is any mention of a King Solomon or his temple? Because ABC 5 you referenced does not.
There is no historical or archeological evidence attributing any Temple base or remains to that of a King Solomon, other than by Biblical description.
There is nothing standing as historical or archaeological evidence for the existence of a King Solomon or a Solomon's Temple, outside of literary fiction in the bible.
Finding a foundation stone for a cottage in a forest near where it is believed that, according to the book , Goldilocks existed, does not mean Goldilocks existed .
Most mainstream archeologists and historians do not support a historical accuracy of King Solomon because there simply isn't any.
since you can never trust stu to give an accurate account of anything which challenges his anti God views... I figured a quick check of wikipedia could not hurt...
what do you know its is not as one sided a Stu would like to profess.
Historical evidence of King Solomon other than the biblical accounts is minimal. Josephus, citing Tyrian court records and Menander in Against Apion, gives a specific year during which Hiram I of Tyre sent materials to Solomon for the construction of the temple.[20] However, no material evidence indisputably of Solomon's reign has been found. Yigael Yadin's excavations at Hazor, Megiddo, Beit Shean and Gezer uncovered structures that he and others have argued date from his reign,[21] but others, such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, argue that they should be dated to the Omride period, more than a century after Solomon.[22]
[edit]Archaeological evidence
In February 2010 archaeologist Eilat Mazar announced the excavation of what she believes is a 10th-century city wall and royal structure that she suggests corroborates the existence of a royal palace and fortified capital city under control of a Hebrew king in Jerusalem in the 10th-century BC. Not all archaeologists believe that there was a strong state at that time, and archaeologist Aren Maeir is dubious about Mazar's dating [23][24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Historical_figure
what do you know its is not as one sided a Stu would like to profess.
Historical evidence of King Solomon other than the biblical accounts is minimal. Josephus, citing Tyrian court records and Menander in Against Apion, gives a specific year during which Hiram I of Tyre sent materials to Solomon for the construction of the temple.[20] However, no material evidence indisputably of Solomon's reign has been found. Yigael Yadin's excavations at Hazor, Megiddo, Beit Shean and Gezer uncovered structures that he and others have argued date from his reign,[21] but others, such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, argue that they should be dated to the Omride period, more than a century after Solomon.[22]
[edit]Archaeological evidence
In February 2010 archaeologist Eilat Mazar announced the excavation of what she believes is a 10th-century city wall and royal structure that she suggests corroborates the existence of a royal palace and fortified capital city under control of a Hebrew king in Jerusalem in the 10th-century BC. Not all archaeologists believe that there was a strong state at that time, and archaeologist Aren Maeir is dubious about Mazar's dating [23][24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Historical_figure
Are you trying to be purposely obscure as per usual or just having a laugh?
There is no historical or archeological evidence that the western wall was or is anything to do with a Solomonâs Temple. There is no such verifiable evidence either, that there was a King Solomon. That only happens when it becomes part of a tale in the Bible.
....so it has only in comparatively recent history been escalated to where the Solomon bible myth is supposed to become real merely by attaching an actual place to it , without any formal verifiable evidence.
Fantasy is a word for that. Political control through extreme religious assertion is another description and reason.
Itâs like finding a stone wall in a particular place, in a particular forest, attaching endless stories and political inferences and power around the place, only because of its strategic position throughout history , and then falsely declaring it to be indisputably the Cottage where Goldilocks met the Three Bears. Just so as to turn it into a over sensitive highly controversial religious shrine as an excuse to feel special and fight over .
So⦠no, as the thread title suggests, itâs Solomon ⦠Scholomon... he canât be backed up.
You really should watch a few episodes of The Naked Archaeologist.
When you say there is no historical or archeological evidence of any kind whatsoever you look a little...well...stuPID.